The philosophies of men mingled with the philosophies of women.

Does your testimony depend on historicity?

A war has raged for most, if not all of the LDS church’s history — is Mormonism true?

And for most, if not all of that war, both sides — critics and apologists — seem to have agreed that the claims to defend or challenge are things such as whether the Book of Mormon documents events that occurred in history (and where?), whether historical narrative can show the character of Joseph Smith, or whether Egyptology and linguistics can verify that Joseph indeed translated an ancient text from particular papyri.

For the believer, the Book of Mormon is the word of God because its fruit nourishes her soul. Joseph Smith is a prophet of God because the fruit of his work brings joy to her life. Jesus is the Son of God because his fruit gives her peace, comfort, and life. These are wholly unconnected to the claims of scholarship and the brute facts of archaeology, history, and biblical criticism. By promoting a conceptual confusion of relevance that does not exist, apologists…are building and placing those very [stumbling] blocks [of faith] in the paths of struggling believers…

Quite simply, many people are taught that Mormonism matters because of secular truth claims — the sort of stuff I mentioned at the beginning of this blog post. The church itself teaches a narrative that relies on secular truth claims; this is not something that apologists brought in on their own. So, Dehlin’s contention is that if scholarly findings do not support the traditional narrative that the church presents, at best, this must be disclosed, and it may legitimately defeat Mormonism.

In the podcast, Dehlin analogized the church to a car:

Let’s just say that the Mormon church in the 21st century is kinda like an automobile…it drives around; it gets people where they need to go; sometimes, people have amazing experiences in it; it’s a viable form of transportation…but there’s some information about its safety record or its reliability that has been known for some time — that it can occasionally lead to death or very unsatisfactory experiences…no one is going to argue that lots of good times have been had in this car, and that in many ways, it has taken a lot of people to a lot of good places, but for some time now, information has been available in the public domain that would let people know that occasionally, using this car can be fatal…because of flaws in the car itself…let’s just say that we now know that the manufacturers of the car have known about these problems for a long time…but have tried to hide the information so that people won’t know about the flaws.

Although the car analogy has been criticized on Facebook (and was critiqued in the episode itself), ultimately, the panel went with it (after all, it is similar to the church’s own “Old Ship Zion” transportation metaphor), and spent several minutes discussing comparable analogies (that is, the church as a building with structural weaknesses). Although Loyd likely did not have much time to think about such an impromptu metaphor, he eventually responded that to the extent his argument could be applied to such a metaphor, his response might be: what if religion is more about how comfortable the seats are? If it is, then although the car may be dangerous to travel in, such danger is irrelevant to how comfortable the seats are.

This answer seems like a profoundly dissatisfying response to me, but it does highlight how deeply the roles we ascribe matter. Quite simply, we buy cars to take us places. No one pays the price for a car just for the seats…and more importantly, there’s a strong case that no one should pay the price of the car just for the seats. So, what does this say, analogously, about religion?

In the podcast, Loyd also discussed music and art created by deeply flawed, problematic, even criminal individuals — and this metaphor made more conceptual sense to me. Couldn’t we accept the possibility that profoundly moving, beautiful music or art could be created by a deeply disturbed, sick, even criminal individual? And would we acknowledge that our ability to enjoy the music or art would persist regardless of the character of its composer? (We might argue that the composer’s character or personality might seep into the work, therefore creating a work that is as problematic as its creator, but we could imagine a work that didn’t bear the sins of its creators and that, if an audience knew nothing about the creator’s misdeeds, they would have no reason to judge the art poorly.)

Does it even mean that no one should engage in scholarship about the secular impacts of religion? Or does this mean that religion cannot be criticized? For Ericson, the answer is no on both fronts.

Ericson has no problem with scholarship; he simply challenges the concept of using secular scholarship to defend (or challenge) religious claims. That is, even if one could prove Book of Mormon historicity or translation accuracy, that wouldn’t show its divinity (Ericson has a compelling example in the essay; as much as it pains me as an accountant to say, even a valid translation of accounting records wouldn’t be explicitly religious; there’s no religion generated from Alma 11:5-19) — and so, even if the church, apologists, and critics have created a culture in which historicity matters, this obscures what truly is at stake.

And what is that, according to Ericson? Where should Mormonism really be tested?

Again, for Ericson, behind or around most claims about secular truth will be core religious claims — that when people say the Book of Mormon is true, they really mean to communicate that to them, it has doctrines that moved, inspired, and transformed them. Or, as another source might put it:

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

I again like the comparison to art or music. We might not spend a great deal of time or money on a flawed car with great seats, but if you think about the course of a life time, we do spend ample time and money on art, music, film, or literature that we find beautiful or moving. And although we may disagree, we can also distinguish between art that we find beautiful and art that we don’t, and this is an entirely separate question from whether the art is ancient or whether the artist was a good or beautiful individual.

My questions, in closing:

Did you convert or join the church because of claims subject to secular scholarly inquiry (things such as Book of Mormon historicity and so forth?)

Did you or do you feel the Book of Mormon (or some parts within) inspire you regardless of claims subject to secular scholarly inquiry?

Would you have engaged at the same level (paid tithing as regularly, etc.,) without scholarly claims?

If you have disaffected, to what extent can you understand this as the church no longer inspiring you spiritually, religiously, morally, or aesthetically?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Published by Andrew S.

A tax accounting graduate of Texas A&M. An epeeist. A cultural, nonbelieving Mormon. Some kind of existentialist or absurdist. A speaker and presenter and writer.
I am Andrew S.
View all posts by Andrew S.

Post navigation

45 thoughts on “Does your testimony depend on historicity?”

Yeah, my (Loyd) impromptu attempt to save the car analogy didn’t quite work. Perhaps rather than the seats it would better to point to music playing on the car audio sound system, and then reverse it so that the point of the car is getting from point A to point B (which it does just fine) and people are complaining that music in the car is by a cover band rather than the original musicians.

I agree that gets the point across better, but it also highlights how the different sides see things fairly differently. That is, part of the very argument is whether what apologists and critics are discussing is something like how well the car gets from A to B (that is, the apologists and critics believe they are discussing core concerns) or whether the music is performed by a cover band (that is, your challenge is that what they think are core concerns really aren’t.) But i conceptually like the idea of “cover band vs original” and how that relates.

How about this synthesis: let’s drop the seats or the music, but keep that the point of a car is to get from point A to point B. Let’s say that the confusion is that critics or apologists are arguing about whether this car is a mercedes or a knockoff, when what’s important is whether the car (whatever its provenance) gets from point A to point B. The confusion is in thinking that brand recognition says anything about performance, when it’s possible that A) a luxury brand could be overhyped compared to its performance or B) a knockoff could perform as good as or even better than the luxury brand.

(Although we’d have to be clear in all of these metaphor modifications that we’re not trying to introduce a different secular criteria for judgment, where someone can say, “Well, objectively this car performs x well…” so maybe the cover band vs original metaphor preserves that better?)

Good post. I agree with Ericson to a great extent. It’s a massive mistake to try to engage in scholarly debates about faith. As soon as you mark yourself as an apologist, you’ve already lost. Supposedly, the greatest parts of religion are exactly those personal, intimate, spiritual and emotional experiences that can’t be codified, or rendered accurately into language or “proven” in an academic sense. So why on earth would anyone try? Neither the Book of Mormon nor the existence of God can be proven intellectually. Aquinas gave the latter a stab and even he failed. And Mormonism has no one close to Aquinas and never will, IMHO. I think the whole thread of Mormon apologetics is really driven by fear and zealotry more than anything. Because our rhetoric is so zealous about being the ONE TRUE CHURCH (despite the fact that, again, we really have no evidence for this except for a bunch of people repeating it over and over with great conviction), it’s like we take any doubt, either within or without the community, as a personal affront. This is just really not the way to go. I’ve never thought of Christ as either defensive or paranoid. I’ve thought of him as calmly going about the business of loving and serving people. We should probably just stick to that. It’s a sad irony that a church as traditionally anti-intellectual as the LDS Church is now trying to “use” scholarship (and scholars) to defend itself. SMH.

And to answer some of your questions, no, I didn’t join the church because it made logical sense. I joined because of intensely personal subjective experiences that I interpreted as calling on me to join the church. Re the Book of Mormon, the violence and anachronisms have always bothered me. And I’ve always read it as a tragedy; as a cautionary tale about the rapaciousness and violent selfishness that seems to be humanity’s birthright. And in that sense, it works very well for me. I’ve always put it in the category of “inspired fiction.” It’s simply not within the scope or flexibility of my belief to have enough faith that Joseph Smith “translated” the supposed golden plates. And I’m certainly willing to concede that that’s a fault. But I can and still do believe that the B of M is inspired and that Joseph Smith and whoever else may have had a hand in its creation was inspired as well. There are a good deal of lessons to be learned from it. It’s too bad we don’t focus more on the transcendent moments, like the Brother of Jared seeing the finger of the Lord, but I do find the book sometimes deeply troubling and sometimes rather inspiring.

Most analogies have a bit of a point but they all fall apart as they are extended. It seems most of these analogies are trying to explain how people FEEL about some of these issues.

I actually think the automobile analogy fits a bit better with the temple and taking out your endowments. You are told you don’t have to buy the car, but once you sign on the dotted line then you can’t get out of it – even though you don’t know the details of the contract you are about to sign.

But on to answering your questions Andrew:
I was BIC, but I kept trying for decades to get a spiritual confirmation partially based on claims of things like historicity of the BOM. But I think I mainly was swayed by firm declarations that leaders of the church said they were able to be guided by God. I wanted what they claimed to have. It seems to me now they don’t have what I was hoping to gain.
I do still like King Benjamin’s speech. It strikes me as a humble, caring, hardworking man. I do have an issue that I see some examples of this type of person in church membership/leadership, but overwhelmingly I see leaders that are more worried about protecting the name of the church than the members within it. I find many other stories more compelling and speak to my heart more than any story in the BOM.
I do not feel I would have invested as much time & $ without some of these claims. I feel rather ashamed that I funneled all of my charitable giving to this one organization to the exclusion of others. I hope I would still be as charitable with my time and money if I wasn’t a member, but I wish I could have spread that across other organizations and causes.
I certainly fall in the disaffected camp. I guess I can consider myself lucky that I have not had any other major betrayals in my life (I have had good loving parents and siblings and a great wife), but the most significant betrayal that I feel has been top church leaders. I think you can see that in my post I just did on https://wheatandtares.org/2017/09/29/showing-some-faith-backbone/
I think part of my angst in this area is that I am an “INTJ” on Myers-Briggs and at work I have done lots of training with quality programs like 6 sigma and others. These all start with a premise that the worst thing you can do is hide/cover up problems because they can’t be fixed and can cause systemic problems. In fact these quality programs promote digging for issues you may not even see so they can then be addressed. The church seems to be 175 degrees from that type of thinking. I even have a t-shirt that says, “if it ain’t broke, take it apart and fix it.” I just intrinsically have a really hard time when a person or a group won’t recognize their short-comings and try and work on them.
As of late I am trying to better understand why I get so upset with issue such as the apparent dramatic stretching of the truth with stories such as John Row Moyle https://wheatandtares.org/2017/10/28/fact-vs-fiction-john-rowe-moyle/ and ones like this. Other than Elder Holland admitting the miracle missionary story and a quiet acknowledgement that Elder Paul H. Dunn made up most of his stories, I don’t see much of any desire to set the record straight. I feel like this is just setting my kids and grand kids to have shelves that are full of issues weighing them down.

The problem is, the religion itself doesn’t allow for “the music is beautiful and it inspires me” or “the seats are comfortable and I like the color.” This religion claims to be The One True Church. It is The Only Car that can take you to heaven. Either it’s All True or It’s The Greatest Fraud Ever (according to President Hinkely).

Even though the apologists are taking a softer stance, the leaders of the church are not. The reason they are not is because of the value of the church is it’s ability to uplift and inspire, than those who don’t experience that are justified in leaving. And the one thing that destroys the church’s narrative more than all of Joseph and Brigham’s bad behavior combined, is people who find happiness and fulfillment outside of mormonism. The church can’t admit that that is a valid path without seriously undermining the authority they are clinging so tightly to.

No, the church itself says we must evaluate it on its absolute truthfulness. So don’t blame me when I do and find it lacking.

I really like this discussion. It seems to strike at the heart of so many issues. I’ll have to go listen to the podcast.

I was raised LDS and the ‘truths’ were foundational to my choices. Which is linked back to the ‘If you pray about the BofM and get a positive response, then it is true. And JS was a prophet. And today’s prophet is a prophet. And everything in LDS history is ‘true.0” It was always taught as an all or nothing. The car is perfect! The artist is a legendary hero of old!

Even though I don’t believe the BofM is historical, I have no doubts about it containing the Word of God and being inspirational. If we approached it this way institutionally, I think I could totally come to love it again. But I have such a hard time with being forced into a corner of only-one-way-to-see believers. That never-ending pressure makes it hard for me to even read it (which is my issue ,I realize). What I want to ask is WHY is the BofM inspirational? Why is the Koran? Why are other texts? How do we define inspirational literature (or Of-God literature) as compared to non. What other texts are out there that we are overlooking because we are totally obsessed with this one? With millions of cars on the road and music playing from the radio, how do we tell the ones that are going to our chosen destination? Or perhaps that isn’t the question at all. How do we decide on a destination and map out a path of travel? Why would the destination even care which care we use as long as we are heading in the right direction?

“If you have disaffected, to what extent can you understand this as the church no longer inspiring you spiritually, religiously, morally, or aesthetically?”

Errr… 100% I understand this for myself. I am active and go through the routine. Everyone once in a while I am inspired, but it is in spite of the state of the car and more because of the beautiful scenery I see out the window. And that feels right to me. I am not bothered by the awful deeds of some of the greatest people we’ve had on this planet (both artists and leaders). Ghandi can be both a leader of his people and a serial adulterer. I am bothered by lying to pretend otherwise. (Tinting the windows of the car so you only see what’s on the inside and not the state of the wheels, holes in the sheet metal, etc.) If the LDS church were to remove the tinting, I’d be find. Heck, I’d be much happier as a Mormon. At the same time, I recognize that a whole ton of other people who don’t ever want to see anything but the car’s interior would be sent spiraling into mess of hurt.

Did you convert or join the church because of claims subject to secular scholarly inquiry (things such as Book of Mormon historicity and so forth?)

While I was born in the church, I didn’t pay attention to scholarly inquiry until when, on my mission, a member in England in 1975 loaned me a copy of Nibley’s An Approach to the Book of Mormon. That “enlightened my mind” and kindled a fire that continues to this day. Another lesson I learned on my mission was not to expect that the institutional arms of the church will teach me everything I need or want to know, but there are individual members out there who are anxiously engaged in doing so. If I seek, I find. If not, there is a law of the harvest.

Did you or do you feel the Book of Mormon (or some parts within) inspire you regardless of claims subject to secular scholarly inquiry?

My whole experience of scholarly inquiry in and about the Book of Mormon has been rewarding, enlightening, exciting, and unexpectedly fruitful. I’ve read thousands of essays and hundreds of books, and even contributed a few dozen pieces myself to a range of publications. But one of the notable characteristics of “secular scholarly inquiry” happens to involve both the questions asked and answers permitted. I’ve compared Alma 32 to Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on many occasions. While such a comparison has nothing to do with historicity, it is not the kind of thing that secular scholars have ever discussed. I’ve read the various essays and interviews and opinions that Michael Coe has offered on the Book of Mormon since 1973, including the PBS interview and the interview with Dehlin. We’re supposed to believe that if there was any good evidence for the Book of Mormon, secular people like Coe would let us know, but what I learn overall is that this is not the case. Despite prominence in his field and his actually having read the Book of Mormon, he does not know the Book of Mormon well, nor does he stay current on or comment on the best LDS scholarship. And when Margaret Barker came along and read the Book of Mormon and said some very insightful things in 2005 in Washington DC, that is not because she is an objective secular scholar. She isn’t secular, and that makes a huge difference. I’ve just finished a long review of a book by Ann Taves, which formally and explicitly takes a secular approach to Joseph Smith. She openly states that the whole point of her book is to explain Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in naturalistic terms. That does not make her more objective and insightful. It means that there are certain doors she does not open, certain lights she does not turn on, certain answers that she accepts as sufficient, and certain things that she assumes simply would not be illuminated if she tried. Even her Bibliography is telling in what she opens and what she does not.

Secular tools can be of use to believing scholars, for example, Nibley cited Blass on the best way to test the claims of purportedly historic documents. But Nibley and other LDS scholars do not presume that the answers we get must be wrong unless they lead to a secular answer. That one word, “secular”, is not ideologically innocent.

Paradigm choice, Kuhn explains, always involves deciding “which paradigm is better?” and “which problems are more significant to have solved?” A secular answer is not inherently better because it is secular. Better ought to be measured by puzzle definition and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise, all notions, that is happens, I find in Alma 32. And we all get to decide which problems are more significant to have solved. That means open questions are not the only thing that goes on the balance scale, but I also get to count existing answers. It’s not all about facing problems as if they are the only thing that goes on the balance, the only things worth considering. Kuhn also observes that different paradigms can lean to labeling the same question as either a puzzle to consider, an open door to step through and explore, or a counter-instance that closes a door.

Would you have engaged at the same level (paid tithing as regularly, etc.,) without scholarly claims?

I was engaged before, always active and serving a mission, but the “seeking out of the best books words of wisdom” has been my primary pleasure in LDS society ever since I read Nibley.

If you have disaffected, to what extent can you understand this as the church no longer inspiring you spiritually, religiously, morally, or aesthetically?

I’m not disaffected. Back in 2004 I wrote an article in Sunstone considering all of the things I had learned and experienced up to that time that I would have missed, had I left when I had my only significant crisis of faith. That one lasted just a few days, and led to my first LDS publication in Dialogue. “New Wine and New Bottles: Scriptural Scholarship as Sacrament.” Had I left, I would not have even known what I was missing. And thirteen years since that Sunstone essay have also been fruitful, mind expanding, and enlightening, filled with discovery and experience that I cherish. And the notion that I could have missed out on all of that and not have even known what I was missing is one of the things that helps me value my testimony.

It definitely feels like this is a self-inflicted problem; as I noted in the article itself, I totally agree that it’s not critics and apologists who are introducing these claims out of nowhere. It’s the church itself.

But I’m still wondering: suppose the church is wrong about exclusivity. Does that mean it doesn’t have value in a pluralistic marketplace? Like is the only thing keeping people in the idea of the “One True Church”? Does Mormonism not have anything to offer if it is “one of many”? Do you think the leaders fear that?

“But isn’t it interesting that the spiritual claims are used to bolster everything else. That is, if you get a positive response from the Book of Mormon, then…

Yes. And one of the major issues in the start of my faith-in-leadership crisis was friends getting positive responses from God (equal in every way to mine and other Mormon’s) in things that under LDS theology should be abhorrent to God. The big in-my-face example was a documentary on a woman’s path to becoming a Catholic nun. It paralleled my experience choosing to go on a mission. It made no sense that God would encourage someone to become a nun, when doing so bars her entirely from the CK as an unmarried woman. So either she was misunderstanding her spiritual experience. I was misunderstanding mine. We were both misunderstanding ourselves. Or both our experiences were legitimate, and there is something going on that is much bigger than the LDS church.

“Do you think the leaders fear that?”

I don’t know that leaders have even gotten as far as thinking this. I’d imagine most are so deeply embedded in ‘One True’ that to discuss/plan for anything would be apostate. E.Uchtdorf, based on some of his conference talks, might be an exception.

My attitude is different from Loyd Ericson’s because for the faith to nourish my soul, my soul needs to feel that it is based on something real. It does nothing for me to read about an all powerful, omniscient, and loving God when the witnesses of Him in the scriptures are all based on metaphor. I’m not so hung up on whether God parted the Red Sea as I am about whether God really led the Israelites out of Egypt. If that’s just a story, since we have no secular evidence of it, then it is not a witness of anything real no matter how good it makes me feel. I’m extremely hung up on the resurrection of Jesus. If that didn’t happen, nor any of the other New Testament miracles, then the witnesses I have in my warm fuzzy feelings don’t mean anything. If I just wanted spiritual feelings, it seems a little heroin and a little LSD might give me what I wanted.

I absolutely feel religion needs to be tied to reality. I don’t believe the critics and the apologists are misframing all the questions (maybe some, but not all). Yes, historicity matters, or the validity of the witness is void.

I view the church not so much as Dehlin’s car, but more as though God poured out a bunch of car parts on the ground and gave church leaders some instructions on how to build the car, but didn’t build it for them. The church leaders used the instructions to the best of their understanding, built a pretty impressive car considering their knowledge of mechanics, but there were still a bunch of pieces left to assemble that they didn’t know where they went. The right length screws weren’t always used, the defroster didn’t work, and the safety features weren’t employed (and yes people died), but by and large the car worked like nothing ever before. And, as time has gone on, church leaders are figuring where to put some of the other pieces and trying to reconfigure, but the fact that these pieces were delivered to them in the first place hasn’t changed. I also think that it’s quite possible that they built a car because that’s all they could handle at the time, but eventually we’re to have a rocket ship.

I’ m a convert. With no regard to what historians say, I believe Joseph Smith was a real person, that he translated an ancient record, and that our God used him to restore the priesthood and fulness of the Gospel in these latter days. With no regard to what historians say, I also believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified, and resurrected. I accept these as facts, even though historians cannot prove them one way or the other.

is it not possible for spiritual truths to be “real” and yet, not accessible or relatable to history, science, etc.,

that is, can God lead *you* out of troubling times based on the story of the Israelites being led out of Egypt with the latter being a metaphor? And if you are indeed enabled to get through your own moments of crisis with the help of that story when everything you were thinking on your own wasn’t quite enough to help you, then is that real? Is it real even though it’s personal and not something that can necessarily be replicated in a lab?

But is the fulness of the Gospel upon which you base your testimony dependent on the BoM being an ancient record. Or is that something you believe additionally, but not inseparably from the Gospel you believe is contained within?

Apologists have Faith; Critics have theories. Very few religious issues have a 100% foundation in objective truth. So we gravitate toward the stance that more closely aligns with our personal desire. How often does our inquiries take us to an answer that’s opposed to what we were anticipating? In other words, if the apologists or the critics took us for a ride, were we willing passengers?

I listened to a good portion of the podcast and found myself partway agreeing w both JD and Lloyd.

Most Mormons I know believe all of our truth claims from our leaders/texts to be historical and literal. We are the only true one and that means something.

That being said the recent incident when the church leaders announced/showed the seer stone to everyone most of the black and white, literal thinkers quickly got in line. Because Mormonism works so well for them they would adapt quickly to careful adjustments of historical claims if introduced in a faith promoting way by our leaders.

So if over a long period of time leaders say, “we don’t know if any myth or metaphor is included the BoM – it often is in other scripture, so it’s possible. That wouldn’t make the BoM less true.” Then I believe most ppl would 100% just accept what the brethren say.

I don’t know if it’s bc they “enjoy the ride” but it’s what they know – and I’m not sure anyone willingly enters the journey of faith de/reconstruction. I know it’s comforting to most Mormons to stay where they are, I think they also enjoy the feelings of exclusivity and chosen-ness our narrative provides. Everyone loves being among the chosen. It would be a lot of complicated, overlapping factors that keep most ppl in – but I think most orthodox would have no problem adapting to non-historicity ONLY if such came from our leaders.

Part of that is bc I think if leaders told members to start collecting black hats, soon there’d be a bunch of people sharing stories abt how having so many black hats blessed their lives in ways never imagined. Tender mercies and all that.

I haven’t disaffected, but have always kept my belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ (faith, repentance, forgiveness, redemption). And I’ve found I can continue to access the Gospel thru the church. I think there are other places ppl access the gospel they that are just as valid (i.e. Exclusivity/historicity claims don’t work for me really). But I don’t leave bc I think the flaws we have here would be present anywhere else. Is there really any other human organization out there that’s not fairly effed up? Like the catholic church or baptists don’t have baggage.

The problem I see is leavers take leaders exclusivity/historicity truth claims – keep those same standards and find the whole organization a failure and leave. I agree the claims are stupid, but I don’t use them vs the org bc there’s has never been nor ever will be a human org that meets them. To me using that standard is the error, on both sides. I mean we don’t renounce our citizenship when we learn how jacked our us history has been and the atrocities we’ve purposely perpetuated worldwide. If that’s the pattern of leaving ppl want to follow that’s what I’d expect the disaffected to do – the US never has nor ever will, meet the perfection reflected in our heritage/mythos or perpetuated by our leaders past and present. No country has. Does that make US more correct to stay in? Hell no, I think Canada would be a valid country to move and be a citizen of…but don’t expect Canada to be free of all of the issues you uncovered in the US.

I think that’s why many disaffected just stop believing instead of “transferring” membership. All the flaws exist everywhere, and instead of accepting membership in a flawed institution w messed up mythos/claims – they abandon it altogether.

PS this does not mean I think ppl should always stay LDS. If you’re being harmed in our system I’d prefer you go find a system (Christ community) that nourishes you. I think that’s the important part. But too many ppl lose the Christ / gospel part imho, which does make me sad.

PPS having Hamilton be out at the time of the exclusion policy probably helped me navigate to where I currently am.

(Well I could have made this whole comment into a separate blog post but here we are)

Andrew S., people tell themselves things all the time that may or may not be true. “It’ll be alright” is probably the most common. Yes, it helps to believe that, and I suppose you might as well. Believing it might actually affect the outcome, even if it isn’t really a deep faith. But if God did not really lead the Israelites out of Egypt, then whatever sentiments the story inspires falls into that category. If that’s what my faith were reduced to, I would feel barren. I find no satisfaction to my soul in reducing my faith to simply a series of psychological games. There has to be something real.

By the way, just because I find Ericson’s point of view wishy-washy doesn’t mean I look down on people for whom it works, and I’m not denying there’s some truth to it. It’s just thin gruel, and I’m a hungry man.

It’s been said in the OP and in the comments, but I’ll say it again: it is the leaders of the church who insist upon historicity of the BoM. I don’t know about current leaders, but correlated lesson manuals also insist on historicity of many biblical stories that others take as myth (Job, Balaam’s ass, the Red Sea parting, etc.)

It is fine for people to draw value and meaning from the BoM apart from its historicity, but it is not a teaching of TCOJCOLDS. (The Church of ….). Belief in a non-literal book of Mormon would not draw me into the organized church, partly because belief in a non-literal BoM is not acceptable to the organized chutch

To let go of the need for the Book of Mormon to be historically provable (or at least to allow that it is not supported by history and science), and to accept it as a source of solely spiritual truth and inspiration is to reject Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was very clear about the literal nature of the golden plates, the location of the Hill Cumorah and all that transpired in the Book of Mormon. So to say that all of that was probably a work of metaphor and the use of narrative to illuminate truth, rather than a historical record, is to reject Joseph Smith as a fraud. So he’s…. an inspired fraud? And current church leaders and teachings require allegiance to Joseph Smith as a true prophet, it’s just really hard for me to square how people can put this all together.

But who’s to say it reduces to psychological games? One hypothesis is that it’s just your brain making things work out (psychological games)…but couldn’t another hypothesis would be that it is an external force or energy you can tap into, but such force or energy is not something that can be measured as a scientific concern. I mean, that’s also what scripture itself will say — that God is ineffable, inscrutable, etc., etc., Wouldn’t it then make sense that you only access that energy through indirect ways?

I mean, when I listen to folks like Dan Wotherspoon et al, they do not believe their experiences with the divine are “thin gruel.” To the contrary, they often say things to the extent that it’s realer than real — that it recasts the rest of the secular mundane world in its light. This is, admittedly, not a sort of experience everyone seems to have. But the folks who do have that experience seem pretty clear that although they can’t really put their finger on it, it’s qualitatively much different than a psychological game. Could they be wrong? Sure. But that’s not the self-perception there, is all.

Very nicely done. In my opinion, The Church has really “painted itself into a corner” in hammering the narrative that this is “the one and only true Church on the face of the earth”; for over 150 years now. Well, when historical, archaeological and measurable scientific fact comes into conflict with this statement – the natural result is disillusionment. That’s certainly what’s happened to me. I no longer have any confidence in our “so called” leaders. They’ve simply protected the dominate narrative – at all costs.

I enjoyed the podcast discussion and your write-up Andrew. Great stuff.

I want to push back a bit against Lloyd’s premise. With a nod to the concept that some aspects of religion are ineffable and thus not capable of being “proven” by secular analysis, it seems to me that there are many aspects of LDS claims that rely upon some sort of historic occurrence – chief among them the need for the restoration itself due to an apostasy from truth. If no priesthood was really restored, prophets are no better than society in general at determining God’s will, or LDS ordinances aren’t required, what’s the point of the restoration? If any text or religious claim boils down to metaphor and all we need is something with proper authority that inspires us toward God, why was there a restoration? It seems these arguments are making a great case for Roman Catholicism, for if doctrinal accuracy doesn’t matter and councils can figure out God’s will in fits-and-starts over decades (with a bunch of errors along the way), so long as we have some sort of authority, I fail to see how the LDS Church is any different from any other religious tradition and thus why a restoration was at all necessary.

At some point this stuff has to have some grounding in some actual, discernible truth or else it seems we are just crafting our own image of God. Thus I can see why many state that historicity matters; otherwise aren’t we just mingling the philosophies of men with scripture? I mean, if polygamy was an error, Joseph didn’t really see Moroni, God didn’t really appear to Joseph, no actual priesthood was restored, etc., why stop there? If Joseph and subsequent leaders were so unreliable, what else is an error?

It seems that there are two ways forward:
1) Cling to the narrative and claim that history matters
2) Set history aside and focus on a meaningful experience

Church leaders seem to be choosing the first path forward and, given what I mentioned above, I can see why they are doing so. It also seems untenable in the long run, but it maintains the uniqueness of the LDS Church, which seems in line with the need for a restoration.

Apologists seem to be focusing on the second path, which looks an awful lot like a club to me, complete with dues. The second path focuses on utility, and for many – myself included – a club with a focus on fighting homosexuality doesn’t have much utility; however, I believe this is the best path forward and we, as a church, should be focused on maximizing the utility of the club/religion. Without a valid traditional narrative, the church needs to offer something meaningful to its members – something they can believe in and be passionate about.

Unfortunately, I see Church leaders losing on both paths at this time. The narrative is falling apart and the experience isn’t terribly meaningful to many. The only one of those two that can be controlled is the experience, so I would suggest altering things to focus on making the experience meaningful and unique.

it seems to me that there are many aspects of LDS claims that rely upon some sort of historic occurrence – chief among them the need for the restoration itself due to an apostasy from truth. If no priesthood was really restored, prophets are no better than society in general at determining God’s will, or LDS ordinances aren’t required, what’s the point of the restoration?

No, I don’t think these are historical claims though. The idea of apostasy is not something a historian can ever establish or disestablish (because a historian couldn’t establish what the “correct” theology should have been.) And questions about whether a priesthood was restored (or not) are similarly not things historians can evaluate. And the definition of a prophet (including whether it means prophets are “better than society” or not…and evaluating whether any particular person fits whatever definition of prophet) is not something for historical commentary.

Everything you mention in this quoted selection is a theological claim, rather than a historical or scientific one.

If any text or religious claim boils down to metaphor and all we need is something with proper authority that inspires us toward God, why was there a restoration? It seems these arguments are making a great case for Roman Catholicism, for if doctrinal accuracy doesn’t matter and councils can figure out God’s will in fits-and-starts over decades (with a bunch of errors along the way), so long as we have some sort of authority, I fail to see how the LDS Church is any different from any other religious tradition and thus why a restoration was at all necessary.

Why is Roman Catholicism theologically correct by default? At some level, any person has to have some sort of religious confirmation that gives them testimony of *any* group — and history has nothing to say either for or against that.

It seems to me that different religious traditions emphasize different things. So, the LDS church is different from other religious traditions to the extent it emphasizes certain things. If those things improve people’s lives, helps them interface with God, etc., then the restoration is necessary. That’s a completely different question than history, etc.,

At some point this stuff has to have some grounding in some actual, discernible truth or else it seems we are just crafting our own image of God. Thus I can see why many state that historicity matters; otherwise aren’t we just mingling the philosophies of men with scripture?

You’re implying that the only discernible truths are those that a historian or scientist could discern. This is its own faith claim. But the religious claim is that there are forms of knowledge separate from historical or scientific knowledge. That religious experience is not reducible to psychological or emotional experience, for example, even if at the same time, it cannot be studied in a lab.

That is, a poem has meaning. It doesn’t just mean “anything” just because its meaning is harder to assess and cannot be assessed in a lab. It doesn’t just mean “anything” because poetry may use metaphors and fiction to tell its truths and meanings.

I mean, if polygamy was an error, Joseph didn’t really see Moroni, God didn’t really appear to Joseph, no actual priesthood was restored, etc., why stop there? If Joseph and subsequent leaders were so unreliable, what else is an error?

Let’s unpack this thought. Can God appear to someone “really” in a way that is scientifically or historically discernible. Or are spiritual experiences the sorts of things that, even when they occur, would not be verifiable through scientific means?

Faith can mean believing that God appeared to Joseph but acknowledging that it may not have looked the same as if I appear to you.

And regarding the last question quoted here…the idea is to test all of the ideas. You don’t accept on package deal. You test. You experiment on the word (or don’t.)

Andrew S., I’m not claiming that someone cannot have a powerful spiritual experience and still deny biblical or LDS historicity. I’m simply saying that a bunch of false stories in the scriptures provide no witness to me of God, even if one claims they still illustrate His qualities.

I agree with most of what Cody Hatch just said, except I believe there’s a third way forward, and that is to cling to the narrative that history matters (I don’t see how the church could do otherwise) and acknowledge limitations in understanding both then and now. I believe that’s exactly the path the church is taking. I don’t believe the narrative is falling apart, but there are certainly pieces that aren’t true and will be discarded, and there are also misinterpretations of the narrative by both members and leaders that will be corrected with time. Apologetics is essential for this third path, I think, because it presents possibilities for members like me, who feel our faith must be grounded in something real, to make sense of things we hadn’t previously had to reckon with.

There are those who are content to dismiss truth claims and be satisfied with the lived experience, but that’s the thin gruel I’m talking about. I can’t subsist on that. Perhaps if I had the Dan Wotherspoon experiences, I could, but I haven’t. Nor has my experience in unravelling the church’s narrative convinced me that it isn’t, at its core, what it claims to be.

Andrew S., science by it’s nature demands that things can be reproducible in experiment, and we agree that religious things cannot be. I believe that God manifests Himself in ways where the effects are tangible and real, if not reproducible. The golden plates had witnesses, people claimed to have hefted them, and yet they’re no longer producible. People claim to have been healed after they’ve been prayed over, and there are witnesses, yet religious healings aren’t reproducible in a medical trial. These are unscientifically verifiable physical events that are nevertheless claimed to be real.

Andrew,
>Does that mean it doesn’t have value in a pluralistic marketplace? Like is the only thing keeping people in the idea of the “One True Church”? Does Mormonism not have anything to offer if it is “one of many”? Do you think the leaders fear that?

No, mostly, maybe, and absolutely.

I think a better question than “does it offer value” is “does it offer to ME?” That’s a very different question than the one mormonism asks its members and potential converts. I think there is tremendous value in organized religion that extends beyond just the community aspect, but just the community alone is a big part of that. The organization and worship format of the LDS church are somewhat unique in that EVERYONE participates, whether it’s sermons, leadership, teaching or the youth program. I love that. That’s just one example of it’s value in a pluralistic marketplace.

That said, I ABSOLUTELY think the Thing keeping people in is the idea of the “One True Church.” As a harmless example, how do you think most members would react if the church announced a tw0-hour block? Or how do you think most members would react if the church announced garments were now to be only worn in the temple? I think the complaining would be minimal, and the excitement would be unrestrained.

I live in an area where the church, although a small minority of the population, is relatively strong. The membership is active, engaged, and dedicated. But all or most of them are basing that on the literalness of the Book of Mormon. No it’s not based on scholarly claims of the historicity, but they would fully expect scholarly claims to one day (if not today) be able to conclusively prove it if all the evidence was available. They believe the garden of Eden was literally in Jackson County Missouri 6000 years ago, that there was literally a worldwide flood, that Nephites literally sailed across the ocean from Jerusalem to the Americas, and are literally the principal ancestors of the native peoples of the Americas, that Joseph literally saw God when he was 14, and literally held metal plates in his hand and translated from them, and literally had John the Baptist and Peter, James and John lay hands on his head to confer priesthood. That is effectively what they bear testimony of every month when they say “I know the church is true.” They’re not saying, “I know this is a good place and is what is the most fulfilling for me personally.”

And that’s why people like me realize there’s a very high probability those things AREN’T literally true we decided to look elsewhere for fulfilment. Because yes there’s good in the church, but there’s also a lot of baggage. For some people the good might outweigh the baggage, even if it’s not literally true. For me it doesn’t. And if we’re basing church membership or activity on what is the best fit for an individual, we have to allow that each individual is going to choose a different path, and that their path is just as valid as yours or mine.

No, I don’t think these are historical claims though. The idea of apostasy is not something a historian can ever establish or disestablish (because a historian couldn’t establish what the “correct” theology should have been.) And questions about whether a priesthood was restored (or not) are similarly not things historians can evaluate. And the definition of a prophet (including whether it means prophets are “better than society” or not…and evaluating whether any particular person fits whatever definition of prophet) is not something for historical commentary.

Everything you mention in this quoted selection is a theological claim, rather than a historical or scientific one.

Andrew, you are correct that those concepts aren’t historically testable but I guess the point I was trying to make was that the LDS Church claims those things happened and the narrative is based upon the reality of those events. A restoration of priesthood authority was required because Christianity had apostatized and invalidated that authority. Thus, the narrative posits that John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John all visited Joseph Smith to restore that authority. Those visits cannot be independently verified by others and are not subject to historical validation as real, actual events like those we associate with our everyday experience. I get that, but that doesn’t change the narrative requirement that such an event took place. It is the reason a restoration was necessary and institutional credibility is derived from it. If the story is seen as lacking credibility, it casts doubt upon the authority upon which the institution leans.

You asked why Roman Catholicism is right by default. I don’t think it is, but if we are going to say that the historical claims upon which the LDS Church differentiates itself from Catholicism aren’t needed, and that LDS prophets are no better at deriving God’s will than are popes and synods, and that the LDS Church authority is all that matters – well, that’s the same claim Catholics make – “Sure, we had corrupt popes, doctrinal errors, etc. but we are the truth and have the true authority.”

You’re implying that the only discernible truths are those that a historian or scientist could discern. This is its own faith claim. But the religious claim is that there are forms of knowledge separate from historical or scientific knowledge. That religious experience is not reducible to psychological or emotional experience, for example, even if at the same time, it cannot be studied in a lab.

If Joseph and subsequent leaders misunderstood events and theology so badly that we have to recast almost all aspects of that theology, then it begs the question: what did they get right? That road leads to a question of utility, which was my argument: either one holds to the LDS historical narrative that a literal Moroni appeared to Joseph, etc.; or any of the claims could be subject to major revision, in which case the community matters more than the narrative (it’s a club) and we should focus on building an enduring community than shoring up a particular narrative. I stated that I vote for the second option, but that does not appear to be the course LDS leadership is taking.

We are in this situation because of historical inquiry, though. Claims have been walked back and are falling back to metaphor. That has been the case for much of history, as religious claims have ceded ground to scientifically verifiable evidence. If all that is left is metaphor, any religion will do, so why hang out in one that is so backward?

I get that, but that doesn’t change the narrative requirement that such an event took place. It is the reason a restoration was necessary and institutional credibility is derived from it. If the story is seen as lacking credibility, it casts doubt upon the authority upon which the institution leans.

No, what casts doubt upon the authority upon which the institution leans is if people don’t get spiritual or religious inspiration from that institution. Restoration doesn’t mean, “People used to believe correct facts about history, now they believe incorrect facts about history, so we must inform them about correct facts about history.” Restoration is about presenting a way of living and engaging with the world and with one another in a spiritually uplifting way — and that’s what the church argues was lost. Restoration was necessary because people weren’t happy with how existing churches and theology worked. The narrative of restoration gave an opportunity to experiment with new ways of living (which narratively are discussed as “the original church”, but again, this doesn’t matter. What matters is whether those ways of living enlarge the soul.)

This restoration gains or loses credibility to the extent people live as the scriptures and the church suggests and either confirm or disconfirm for themselves whether it uplifted them, enlargened their soul, etc.,

You asked why Roman Catholicism is right by default. I don’t think it is, but if we are going to say that the historical claims upon which the LDS Church differentiates itself from Catholicism aren’t needed, and that LDS prophets are no better at deriving God’s will than are popes and synods, and that the LDS Church authority is all that matters – well, that’s the same claim Catholics make – “Sure, we had corrupt popes, doctrinal errors, etc. but we are the truth and have the true authority.”

I feel like my point isn’t getting across. The LDS church doesn’t differentiate itself primarily by *historical claims*, but *theological* claims. Catholics primarily believe that their church has the truth and authority because they have gotten *spiritual and religious inspiration from following its teachings*. Not because of history.

Yes, these religions make similar claims categorically (your life will be enriched if you follow our teachings), but the details differ. The question is if someone is inspired and motivated by one or the other or both or neither. Which is entirely different than questions of history, which quite frankly don’t care about how inspired you are.

If someone becomes disenchanted with Mormonism, that doesn’t mean Catholicism will inspire. Assuming the religious interconnectedness here is part of the historical narrative confusion.

I’m just trying to state that, if everything is metaphorical, there is not much of a difference between the resulting religion and believing in the myths of ancient Greece.

1) Honestly, why is this a bad thing? Why wouldn’t we just say *that’s how religion is*, so study up????

2) The difference between the myths of ancient Greece and religions of today are that the myths of ancient Greece no longer captivate or inspire people as they used to. But Mormonism or any other current religion shouldn’t pretend that it’s special and different (and also, neo-pagan revivalists would say that Greek myths still have the power to animate, to inspire, etc.,) There are still truths to the pantheon.

We are in this situation because of historical inquiry, though. Claims have been walked back and are falling back to metaphor. That has been the case for much of history, as religious claims have ceded ground to scientifically verifiable evidence. If all that is left is metaphor, any religion will do, so why hang out in one that is so backward?

When you say “why hang out in one that is so backward?” this betrays a certain religious infidelity. The argument for following traditionalist religions would be that one believes there are still life truths in that. That is, you call it backwards because you are not inspired by those tenets, not because it’s not historical or anything of the sort.

Mormonism is seen as backwards not because of historical or scientific inquiry, but because it’s not inspiring people the same. If we take, for example, Mormonism’s heteronormative theology, that theology seems draconian to many rather than life affirming and spiritually productive — but for those who believe in traditionalist values, that’s not the same conclusion they would draw. And science and history, don’t opine on the morality of heteronormativity or not — if we are converted to liberal progressive values, then the church looks backward. But that wasn’t a historical or scientific question.

To let go of the need for the Book of Mormon to be historically provable (or at least to allow that it is not supported by history and science), and to accept it as a source of solely spiritual truth and inspiration is to reject Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was very clear about the literal nature of the golden plates, the location of the Hill Cumorah and all that transpired in the Book of Mormon. So to say that all of that was probably a work of metaphor and the use of narrative to illuminate truth, rather than a historical record, is to reject Joseph Smith as a fraud. So he’s…. an inspired fraud? And current church leaders and teachings require allegiance to Joseph Smith as a true prophet, it’s just really hard for me to square how people can put this all together.

I just want to emphasize that there *are* other options than “100% as Joseph said” or “totally fraudulent.” Fraud implies knowing intention to deceive. (I do think “pious fraud” is an option, as you note…Sunstone has a panel that should be available to download called “Four Views of the Prophet…”) The other option that isn’t really being discussed is that Joseph may have been mistaken in the provenance, but not intentionally misleading.

If Joseph’s calling as a prophet is about his ability to produce doctrines that work (not his ability to know the past before historians figured it out), then he could absolutely still be a “true prophet” and incorrect about the origins of the Book of Mormon. Not saying you should believe that, just that the question of whether he is a true prophet hinges on whether you think the Book of Mormon and other theology he produced is inspiring. Historicity can’t and won’t tell you that.

Andrew S., I track much better with Cody’s line of thinking, which is probably much more representative of your average Mormon. When you talk about how inspiring someone finds a religion, it makes it sound like a fashion statement — “mauve sets off my skin tone and makes me feel alive and buoyant”. Yes, I believe a color or style could have that affect on someone, but when it comes to truth claims, there needs to be a claim to something objectively true, not just subjectively true, or it simply isn’t universal. Which may be your point — Mormonism is fine if it works for you, otherwise something else might work better. It’s a way of thinking that divorces religious experience from reality as it’s premise, in favor of preference. If an angel Moroni really did deliver up gold plates to Joe Smith, that’s a real event or not, regardless how inspiring one finds it.

On Monday of this week, I planned a hike because the weather forecast showed a warm sunny cloudless day for today, Wednesday. I went on the hike about 11:30am. It was very cloudy and not as warm as the Monday forecast predicted. That is just two days ago. With all the modern super computer resources available to modern weather forecasters they still can’t provide 100% accurate forecast for even two days. Yet, weather forecast are still very valuable even though there flawed when you put them under a microscope. Consider recent hurricanes. Even with less than perfect forecasting the weather forecast provided enough reliable information so that millions of people were able to prepare. Many lives and property were spared because of weather forecast.

If you view the church and church leaders like this weather forecast metaphor then their value is apparent. If you put them under a microscope you don’t see their real value. We believe in fallible prophets! Therefore, the church is necessarily fallible! The Book of Mormon was bought into being by a prophet and therefore will have flaws. Church doctrine is taught by prophets, therefore doctrine is necessarily incomplete. However, like the weather forecast you can benefit greatly by following God’s prophets.

My experience has been that even though prophets an everything they touch can be less than perfect, they can lead you to to a point where you can connect with God, if you’re willing to pay the price by following them. God accomplishes His purposes by working through fallible human beings–prophets. John Dehlin’s flawed car will eventually get you to the celestial kingdom if you press forward faithfully.

A wonderful post. It has me really thinking this afternoon;thinking of Australia, and more specifically the area I am from. I’m from the Tweed region, in northern NSW. The region is a part of the Bunjalung nation, or an Aboriginal tribe. They were here long (thousands of years) before any white settlers came here.
The Bunjalung people, has a familiar story across most of the Aboriginal nations. They were slaughtered, pushed away, and denigrated to non human in the early years of white settlers. For instance, my local beach:

with its beautiful, peaceful headland has the troubling story of a massacre. In the wake, and within the midst of this violence and travesty, farms were created, within European communities. It is such a peaceful beautiful land. I am a 5th generation of this legacy, in the Tweed region.
I had accepted this history without qualm. My family, a poor dairy farming family, has convict roots; from England and Ireland. We have slowly, through the generations, flourished. The farm is now such a deep connective part of my family (parents, siblings and their partners, and my own wife and children).
The quiet, troubling knowledge of where all this has come from, what the Australian nation is built upon, is now disquieting. Its easy not to think about the issues, as they have never directly impacted me. And yet they are there. The impact of the Aboriginal displacement, for want of a better word, still impacts communities and Australians across the continent. Death, destruction, and tragedy rippling out across generations of native Australians.

I’ve enjoyed the description of various analogies around the grip of historicity and faith. Why is it that I can accept my personal history, even though it is different from what I first knew, and yet cannot forgive the church for a similar contrast? Can I forgive the church for it’s gaping inconsistency, that it has knowingly covered over? It no longer feeds me spiritually, but perhaps I can sit there, amidst believers, being more accepting….more forgiving. There is hope for that, where there was none previous.

The real problem with the transportation analogy, be it automobile or boat, as I see it, is that while one rides in either mode of transportation in order to get to where one wants to go, the Church never actually gets you to point B. It tells you, yes, get in, we’re all heading to point B, but then it never actually gets you to the destination, and that’s when they start pointing out how nice the sound system is, how comfy the seats are. You’ll be happy to travel to a merely metaphorical place, won’t you?

When a Church relays the stories of how hard Joseph had to work to keep the plates from falling into the hands of the enemies of the Church when he first obtained them, how Emma “moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work”, and how a fellow named Moroni promises in the translation of those plates that “the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God”, this doesn’t sound very metaphorical to me. The Church is not going to be able to have it both ways.

For me, the Church has become The Truman Show’s Seahaven. A nice place to live, provided you don’t discover that it’s not at all what everyone there tells you it is, even as your best friends insist they would never lie to you about some big conspiracy to keep you from learning the truth. I came to the conclusion that I could no longer go along to get along. Every priesthood lesson I was asked to teach pretty much required me to bear testimony of the truth of the Church and its leaders and its scriptures. For my own feelings of integrity and self-respect, I had to stop.

First off, I am enjoying the back-and-forth and really like that you’re pushing me on this, Andrew. It forces me to better articulate my thoughts on the matter and you always bring a great perspective, which I appreciate.

With that said, let me first give a bit of comment about where I am at. It’s going to be simple and gloss over a lot of nuance/details, but here goes…

I am not a literalist. I do not believe Adam and Eve were real people in a garden 6000 years ago. I don’t think the earth was flooded and only one family survived. The Exodus story is probably fake. You get the idea; however, I do think Jesus really lived, died and was resurrected. I do not think the four Gospels portray a historically accurate account of Jesus’ life according to academic standards. I don’t think the Book of Mormon is a story of real people. I think Joseph Smith probably wrote it but probably believed he was inspired in doing so. He seems genuine to me. I don’t think a real person named Moroni visited him, that priesthood was restored according to the narrative, etc. I think he misunderstood a lot of things but was genuinely seeking God rather than being a fraud.

I think the point of religion is to move us closer to God. I think our understanding of God is woefully inadequate and that he can communicate to us in ways we understand, so religion won’t look the same to everyone yet can be God speaking to their soul, moving them forward. There is a lot of potential for us to misunderstand God or attribute things to him that should not be, so the human touch is all over religion, for better or worse. I believe in a hands-off God, not in a God of lost car keys. I believe the value of religion is how it speaks to your soul and that value cannot really be measured by scientific studies, etc.

I am largely in agreement with you, I think; however, that is not the proposition of the LDS Church and most other religions and my pushing back is to try and speak of why I think Lloyd’s approach is difficult for literal believers (of which I am not). The LDS Church has not made the argument of, “If this speaks to you but you don’t buy into our claims, that’s cool with us.” It has argued that it is the only path to God. That is why there is a massive investment in the missionary program and temples, both of which seek to provide the LDS Church framework to those who lack it so they can return to God. If the proposition was that any religion works so long as it speaks to your soul, the LDS Church would have no need to send out 70,000 missionaries to convert people, baptize them, etc.

Same goes for the Catholic Church. Sure, individual Catholics may take the utilitarian approach (that’s the term I’ll use for my view), but the institutional Catholic Church most certainly makes a plea to authority. It definitely does not take the approach of, “Cool, whatever religion you choose is great so long as you get to God.” There is a reason the papal insignia has two keys on it and is plastered all over the Vatican.

Back to the LDS Church…My argument is that a narrative based on real events, with real angels visiting real people, has been central to the LDS Church’s claims from the very beginning. As a result, the Church has claimed to be the sole authority from God in the world, offering the only saving ordinances, all resulting from authority that derived from some event that we can point back to. Purportedly historical events have been central to the claims of this Church, which is why it is a difficult proposition to jettison those claims. I think those claims are untenable and the Church needs to find a better path, which it seems to be slightly nudging toward, but I get why they are difficult for people to let go of (and probably will always be part of the Church’s narrative).

I wasn’t trying to demean the Greek myths. I think they contain some truth and can be inspiring. I was only trying to say that, according to the traditional LDS narrative, they are not adequate for salvation.

One of the things that has been very influential on me is understanding how the brain actually works (I’m a book/audible/podcast addict). I recently listened to The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Not a perfect book (and I didn’t agree with everything he said), but he told of some research that really pulled together everything I’d been thinking about JS’s vision and all subsequent visions (of us all).

In my words, explaining Pinker’s words (with him explaining the research), researchers did a bunch of work with individuals who had their brains surgically divided in half to stop seizures. So the right and left sides of the brain could not communicate. What the researchers did was control the situation so that they could present information or ‘talk’ to only one side of the brain at a time. They gave the right side (the non-verbal side) of the brain instructions to go into the other room and get something to drink. The person did. When they returned, the researchers asked the left side (verbal side) why they had just done that. The honest answer was ‘I have no idea.’ But instead of saying that, the left side of the brain spun a detailed story of what had happened, detailing out how they’d suddenly gotten thirsty and needed a Pepsi, etc.

What came out of this is that when it can’t understand its own experience, the brain creates a story that is completely unreal. And the brain/person can’t tell the difference. This story becomes memory and lived experience.

I believe God and the after-life is beyond human understanding. I believe JS did have a manifestation in the grove that was truly indescribable (as compared to the ‘indescribable vision described in History of the Church and all those hooky paintings) and his human nature took the indescribable and created a story for it. Whether he continued to have visions that enlarged the story or whether it is just human nature to keep enlarging, I don’t know.

At the end of the day, it’s about the manifestation itself though. It’s about seeking to understand man’s relationship with God and JS’s visions helps us to do that. Getting too caught up in hard-and-fast ‘I’m right / you’re wrong’ doctrines (that don’t involve harm to others) don’t help me to do that.

1. I was born and raised in the covenant by temple-attending parents. I served a mission in significant part on the strength of their literal beliefs in the LDS Church’s doctrine and historical claims. As I learned during my faith crisis, my belief was strongly tied to these claims. When I lost that belief, I eventually stopped attending.

2. I find certain passages in the Book of Mormon lyrical/beautiful. But those stand in sharp contrast to the book’s general sternness and violence (much of it initiated/sanctioned by God). Post-faith crisis, I reread the Book of Mormon and found I generally didn’t care for it anymore. To my agnostic soul, the book reads too hell-fire & brimstone, confusingly Trinitarian, and devoutly racist (not to be confused with modern white supremacy as I understand it). So, despite moving passages like 2 Nephi Chapter 4 (my favorite), the book is no longer especially useful to me.

3. Being born and raised LDS, I suppose I would have stayed active into my early 20s even if my parents weren’t literalists about the Church’s doctrines and historical claims. College helped awaken my agnosticism. And I am grateful it did. I can’t give a literal tithe of time, talents, and money, to a Church I no longer have a literal belief in.

4. Aesthetically and spiritually, I find the LDS Church hit and miss. Lacking a testimony in the Book of Mormon as non-fiction, and the formal restoration of priesthood and the one true church, I do not see Mormonism as more satisfying than other churches. I also occasionally fellowship with Methodism and Roman Catholicism, with satisfaction. Morally, especially with regard to sexuality, I find the Church’s stances too sweeping, staunch, and steeped in old-school patriarchy. But to end on a positive note, recent interactions I’ve voluntarily initiated with my local ward have been generally positive. Lots of good and compassionate people doing their best.

With all due respect to Loyd Ericson, his thoughts are misguided. Historicity matters. Let us ask, Does it matter if jesus was historical? For me it does. If he did not exist then there will be not resurrection, afterlife with him, and so on. Historicity in this context is all that matters. If he did not exit then maybe there is no God or the hindus have the answer. Same with Joseph. If he just conjured up the BOM, then was he lying about Moroni coming to his room? That would explain the anachronisms in the book. The problem is that I can find inspiration in all kinds of things without calling it religion. Lord of Rings has wonderful lessons to be learned but I am not going to give 10% and a whole bunch of time to the Lord of Rings club. Historicity matter.

Good post (skipped comments). I can appreciate the idea that Joseph wanted to provide spiritual nourishment through his angel-witnessing, plate-discovering, Kinderhook-translating self, but at the end of the day, I think the OP title’s very subtle assertion of superiority over those whose testimonies rely on historicity overlooks the the fact that many reasonable people simply don’t enjoy the feeling that they’ve been misled (if that’s the conclusion they’ve come to), no matter the intent.